Reuters claims the Office of the Director of Intelligence disagrees with a recent report which stated the CIA blames Russia for meddling with the Election of 2016.

CIA Exposed: Top US Spy Agency Won’t Back Russian Hacker Story Because of ‘Lack of Evidence’

As The Free Thought Project reported Monday, the FBI does not concur with the CIA’s findings that the Election of 2016 was influenced by the Russians. On Monday, the outgoing president weighed in, openly saying the Russians were involved, attempting to influence the election, and pointing to Trump’s own comments where, publicly at a campaign rally, asked the Russians for help in finding Clinton’s deleted 30,000 emails — in jest.

But it’s not just the FBI which disagrees with the CIA and the president over Russia’s involvement. Under the direction of Director James Clapper, The Office of the Director of National Intelligence along with the Department of Homeland Security issued a joint statement in October saying, “we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government. The USIC and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assess that it would be extremely difficult for someone, including a nation-state actor, to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion.”

The statement then defends America’s election system safeguards saying, “This assessment is based on the decentralized nature of our election system in this country and the number of protections state and local election officials have in place. States ensure that voting machines are not connected to the Internet, and there are numerous checks and balances as well as extensive oversight at multiple levels built into our election process.”

According to a Reuters report on Tuesday, and a close examination of ODNI press releases, interviews, and news feeds, all reveal the position of the ODNI remains unchanged. Reuters writes, “While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA’s analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.”

All of the aforementioned facts are leading many to believe the Democrats’ assertion the Russians have corrupted the election process is mere hyperbole, and a miserable attempt to influence the Electoral College into disavowing Trump on Monday when the Electoral College meets to certify Donald Trump as the next president of the U.S.

While The Free Thought Project, “does not keep it a secret that we hold no faith in the two-party political paradigm or process and we seek only truth and liberty for all,” one cannot look at the Election of 2016 and not arrive at the conclusion it was the Democrats, not Republicans, who were the subject of much of the political scandals during the election.

During the election, many political Republicans (John McCain, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz) post-nomination, distanced themselves from Trump. And with Wikileaks’ constant feed of Democratic National Committee (DNC), Hillary Clinton, and John Podesta emails, those who followed the election were all but forced to cover topics such as the DNC’s subversion of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign, collusion with mainstream media reporters, Debbie W. Schultz, and Donna Brazile. Add to that, the official Benghazi Report, Clinton’s tarmac meeting with Lynch, James Comey’s speech, Anthony Weiner (again), and Clinton’s own comments about Trump supporters being a “basket of deplorables,” and any organization covering the truth of those events may, indeed, appear to be conservative. However, we remain entirely apolitical.

Almost immediately after the DNC servers were hacked, the Democrats began decrying the hack as a Russian operation, intent on subverting Clinton’s chance at the presidency. Countering that claim, The Free Thought Project spoke with a retired high-ranking FBI official, who disputed Russian involvement, stating the leak was most likely an inside operation, a mutinous action by FBI officials who were peeved about Clinton not being indicted for her handling of classified information from her time as secretary of state.

Another possible source of the leaks was recently murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange implied he very well may have been the source for Wikileaks, and denied Russian involvement. As a result of Rich’s murder, much speculation exists his death was indeed related to the leaks. All the while, Rich’s murder remains an unsolved mystery.

Now, just a month and a week since the general election, and just days before the Electoral College meets (Monday the 19th) to seal the deal on Trump’s election, an all-out information war is taking place, an apparent last-ditch attempt to sway the outcome of the election. All of this madness serves as fodder for conspiracy theorists who’ve long contended President Obama will attempt to maintain power, and not leave the White House quietly. Hypothetically speaking, if the Electoral College meets next week and does not confirm Trump as the next president, all hell might break loose, creating such a situation where the sitting president may attempt to stay in power.

The Clinton campaign isn’t giving up either. According to the BBC, “On Monday John Podesta, the chair of the Clinton campaign, issued a statement saying that they supported a request by 10 electoral college voters – nine Democrats and one Republican – to receive a briefing from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on evidence that the Russian government meddled in the US presidential election.” Podesta is Clinton’s campaign manager.

If Clapper concedes and gives the Electoral College the briefing Podesta and some voters are encouraging, it would be inconceivable that his statement would contradict the official statement made in October, but the possibility cannot be ruled out. However, according to BBC estimates, even if there’s some sort of defection within the Electoral College, the outcome of the election will most likely still result in the appointment of Trump as the next president. “Any hope of swaying enough electors to hand the presidency to Mrs. Clinton or a more moderate Republican (Ohio Governor John Kasich, for example) is the longest of long-shots. Although one Republican from Texas, Chris Suprun, has said he won’t vote for Mr. Trump, another 36 would have to break ranks to drop the Republican below the 270-vote threshold necessary for victory,” writes the BBC.

Archives

Archives

Archives

Archives

All information, data, and material contained, presented, or provided on TheFreeThoughtProject.com is for educational purposes only. It is not to be construed or intended as providing medical or legal advice. Any views expressed here-in are not necessarily those held by TheFreeThoughtProject.com